As a female apologist, every now and again I’ll encounter other women claiming to be feminists who look down on Christianity because they claim it devalues women and that it minimizes the role of the woman in relation to the man. Also, there are some theologians of the egalitarian (evangelical feminists) persuasion who claim that the Bible was written in a patriarchal society, and because of that certain Scriptures do not apply to us in our contemporary culture. Some Scripture passages that the person untrained in hermeneutics might misinterpret as demeaning to women are Genesis 2:18, which classifies the woman as the “helper,” I Corinthians 11:3, which states that the man is the head of the woman, Eph. 5:22 which states that wives should submit to their husbands, and I Timothy 2:12 that states only men are to lead in the church. This controversy is perpetuated by men who have used these Scriptures throughout history to justify abhorrent treatment of women. An accurate treatment of these Scripture passages will be examined later in this article.

This issue is very relevant to us as apologists because we should all, men and women alike, be prepared to give a defense of how Christ and the Christian worldview have actually done the opposite of what the world claims, and have liberated women. By discussing this topic and accurately exegeting Scriptures we’re tearing down strongholds and barriers to people placing their faith in Christ.

I will begin by providing a some context and discussing some background information about how Christianity liberated women in Jesus’ day and how it has done so in more recent history. There are records of Pharisees in Jesus’ day literally running into walls because they placed such a great emphasis on refraining from even looking at women so as to maintain their appearance of holiness before men. Their legalism literally drove them into walls. There are records of rabbis praying prayers in which they openly thanked God that they were not born women.

Jesus showed up on the scene and did some very radical things that were completely counter-cultural. He focused special attention on women and conversed with individual women one-on-one. He spoke at length with a Samaritan woman, taking the time out to teach her about what it means to really worship God. He spoke with a disheveled woman who had just been caught in the compromising position of committing adultery, and acted as an avenue of grace for her in public in front of the same religious leaders who were running into walls to avoid women. Jesus stood apart in that He treated women as though they were equally important in the plan of God as were men. And He modeled for His culture and every culture worldwide since then that a woman is indeed deserving of love, honor, and dignity because she too bears the image of God. And just as men reflect the image of God in a unique way that women cannot, women reflect His image in a way that is unique to the feminine persona.

Jesus offered women new roles and equal status in His kingdom:

“ A woman was the first to bear witness of His resurrection (Matthew 28:8-10). Women followed Jesus with the multitudes (Matthew 14:21), and Jesus featured women and used things associated with them in His parables and illustrations (Matthew 13:33; 25:1-13; Luke 13: 18-21; 15: 8-10; 18: 1-5). In the New Testament the birth and infancy narratives note a remarkable number of women. Matthew include four—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba—in his genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:3. 5-6). Through these women to whom God extended His forgiveness, Messiah would come. Jesus spoke to women (John 4) and taught them individually and privately (Luke 10: 38-42). A company of women often traveled with Him (Luke 8: 1-3), and He often spoke highly of women (Matthew 9:20-22; Luke 21: 1-4). He safeguarded the rights of women, especially in His teachings on marriage and divorce (Matthew 5:27-32; 19:3-9). For Jesus to expend time and energy in teaching women indicates that He saw in them not only intellectual acumen but also spiritual sensitivity.[1]

In addition to the aforementioned scriptural references, Scripture also refers to the woman as a “helper” to the man. This may have a negative connotation in our culture, but in the Old Testament, “helper” describes the “ethical, spiritual, and physical assistance given to one in need…[it] defines a woman’s role in the functional difference existing between husband and wife. A “helper” is one who provides what is lacking in another, one who can do what another cannot do alone. The Lord comes as a helper to assist the helpless, not because He is inferior and relegated to menial ‘helping’ tasks, but rather because He alone has what is necessary to meet the needs [Exodus 18:4; Deut 33:7; Hosea 13:9; Psalm 70:5).[2]

Furthermore, the passage that speaks of man as the head of woman (I Corinthians 11:3) is not speaking of ontological subordination, but subordination in role and function. The Trinity serves as an example of this: though the Son is equal in substance to the Father and the Spirit, the Son is (eternally) submissive to the will of the Father (John 5: 17-24).[3] This passage as well as Ephesians 5:22 acknowledge that man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church, which necessitates that the husband should love his wife sacrificially as Christ loved the Church and gave His life for her. This teaching is liberating for women in that it places the greater responsibility in the marriage on the man as the one who must love, protect, and honor his wife in the same manner Christ demonstrated to His bride, the Church. So, rather than being oppressive to women, these passages are actually liberating for women, while holding the man to an even greater responsibility.

Although I Timothy 2 may be interpreted as sexist by egalitarians, the following is more of an accurate interpretation of this Scripture:

“Paul was no sexist, but rather a champion of the equality of men and women before God—a sharp contrast to the chauvinistic teaching of many of his contemporaries. Paul recognized that male-female equality did not require abolishing all role distinctions, which were defined by God in creation…Evidently, the dales teachers taught that male authority in church and home and the woman’s childbearing role were curses for sin, which Jesus’ atoning work had eradicated (Gen. 3:16). Paul recognized that Eve’s curse involved oppressive male leadership and pain in childbearing, but male leadership and childbearing were part of God’s plan for pre-fall creation (Gen. 1:27-8; 2:18).[4]

The Feminization of the Church and the History of Secular Feminism

In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey offers an explanation for how feminism came about in history via the phenomenon of the feminization of the church. She believes that this shift actually began to take place with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, which divided the private sphere of family and faith from the public sphere of business and industry. Before the Industrial Revolution work was conducted from the home, with the husband and wife co-laboring as partners in the household/workplace. The man retained his position as head of the home, but his actions as the head were also motivated by his responsibility to look out for his family first. Pearcey states that in their day-to-day life fathers experienced the same integration of work and child-rearing responsibilities the mother did. Fathers were considered the primary parent, not the mother. This dynamic, Pearcey states, changed with the Industrial Revolution, which took work out of the home, causing men to leave the home as well as their role as the primary parent. This also dramatically changed the woman’s role from more of a renaissance worker in the home to a housekeeper who also provided care for the children. Women were called upon to “cultivate the softer virtues—of community, morality, religion, self-sacrifice, and affection.[5]” As fatherhood lost status, men showed a decreasing investment in being fathers. From 1960-1980 there was a striking 43 percent reduction in the amount of time men spent in a family where young children are present. She also goes on to say that for many women today, on a personal level, the problem is not male dominance so much as male desertion. Men are leaving the home. So the shift took place when women became the spiritual heads of the household. More women than men attended the “awakenings revivals of the 1800s, more women attended church than men, so that’s how the feminization of the church came about, which also opened the door for feminism.

As a result of some of the changes enacted by the Industrial Revolution, the role of the woman in the public and private spheres of society had been minimized and even denigrated. Contemporary feminists and womanists (Black feminists) speak of the woman’s role in the home and church pejoratively, in a degrading way. This is why language of “empowerment” the way feminists use it, is dangerous for a believer to use because it perpetuates this idea of a power struggle between the man and the woman, which is detrimental to both sexes. Nancy Pearcey actually discusses the rapid growth of feminism in the 1960s due to the reason that women “refused to maintain a double standard with men.” She says “Nor were they willing to remain isolated in a private sphere (meaning the home as the workplace) that had been devalued and emptied of much of its productive and personally fulfilling work. Feminists urged women to leave the empty husk of the home and to stake out a claim in the public arena, where ‘real’ work was done and where they could gain some respect.” (p. 344). She states that we can better understand secular feminism by realizing that it was an attempt by women to cross this troubling chasm in order to join men in the public sphere. A better route however, would be to close the gap itself, recovering some measure of integration of work and worship for both men and women.

Because the traditional role of women was and still is devalued some women now feel the need to proclaim their equality with men. Whereas, as Christians, we don’t believe that the woman’s submission to the man indicates inferiority to the man. During Father’s day, a female friend of mine who is a single mother mentioned that several of her friends were wishing her a happy Father’s Day because she’s a single parent to two children. And she remarked how it was actually a comment stemming from ignorance and misunderstanding because she recognized that the man fulfills a God-given role that only he can fulfill, so for someone to wish her a happy Father’s day just because she may have to fill both roles at times was an affront to the clear designation of roles God has laid out in Scripture. It doesn’t mean that the woman’s role is less significant or that she’s inferior to the man; she simply exemplifies another aspect of the character of God in a manner in which the man is not suited for.

Sharon James wrote an article in the Apologetics Study Bible and she says it best when she states that we as Christians should be willing to challenge the following contemporary presuppositions in the light of Scripture:

Presupposition 1: Equality means sameness. Talk of different roles is discriminatory.

Response: Equality does not mean sameness. The three persons of the Trinity are equal in deity, but different in role.

Presupposition 2: Difference in role relates directly to personal worth. Submission equals relegation.

Response: Submission does not mean being of lesser worth. The Son submits to the Father, while being equal in deity, and His submission is His glory.

Presupposition 3: Women will be empowered only when they have become the same as men (filling the same jobs and reaching the same status).

Response: Women do not have to fill the same jobs as men in order to be empowered. This idea insults the large number of women who regard relational success as of greater importance than career success. The Bible honors those women who were wives, mothers, and homemakers (Prob. 31; I Tim. 5:9-10, 14) as well as women who ministered and worked in other ways.[6]

The apologist would do well to note that whenever someone makes an accusation against Christianity claiming that it demeans women or devalues women, the most appropriate and accurate response would be that historically, wherever Christianity has spread throughout the world, the social status of women has significantly improved. The countries where women are most exploited today are those with least exposure to the gospel, such as Islamic countries. Christians have been among the first to provide education and other rights for women throughout history.[7]

Christians have the unique responsibility of restoring to the mind of every culture in which we are all spread out, the dignity, honor, and beauty of women as God created her to be the glory of the man. We are supposed to be the conscience of society. The value of women has been lost, from the most misogynistic culture to the culture that is most characterized by rampant feminism. The essence of the woman has been lost. And no one knows anymore what it means to be a woman. No one truly understands the intrinsic value of the woman. This is where the Christian’s battle against bad theology as well as social injustice against women begins. And we lead by example. It starts in the heart and mind, and that it where we begin to honor women. I have a professor at Talbot, and whenever he refers to his wife, he calls her “his bride,” “his treasure,” “his gem.” They’ve been married for over 40 years now, and he still honors her as a fellow image-bearer of God by treating her as the more fragile vessel. May we eagerly assume our position as the light-bearers of our society and restore the value of the woman in the eyes of a society that has long neglected her true worth.

[1] Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Holman Reference, 1998), p. 1679-80.

[2] Ibid., p. 1680.

[3] The Apologetics Study Bible (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2007), p. 1723.

[4] Ibid., p. 1801.

[5] Nancy Pearcey, “Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity” (Wheaton: CrossWay Books, 2004), p. 333.

[6] The Apologetics Study Bible (Nashville: Holman Reference, 2007), p. 730.

[7] Ibid., p. 730.

My purpose in writing this article is to hold up the proverbial mirror to the Black church in hopes that we might help lift our people out of the bondage that results from bad theology. James Cone, whom I’ll later discuss, makes a valid point when he states, “A community that does not analyze its existence theologically is a community that does not care what it says or does. It is a community with no identity.” Ironically however, his own theology is found wanting when analyzed. In this article, I plan to comment on some of the more popular theological movements within the Black church, such as Oneness Pentecostalism, the prosperity gospel, and the Black liberation theology movement, with respect to the roots of the Christian religion as interpreted by the Black race during slavery.

Oneness Pentecostalism

About 10 years ago, when I lived in Dallas, TX, I began attending a prominent, predominantly Black mega-church. I had the utmost respect for the lead pastor, and I was very impressed with his ministry. I even began the process of trying to join the choir; it was a tedious 6-month long process. One day my sister-in-law told me, “You know, the lead pastor doesn’t believe in the Trinity.” I was sure she was mistaken, but the more I researched his statement of doctrine and researched what the wording meant I realized he was a Oneness Pentecostal. When I brought this issue to the minister of music, he told me, “Candace, the Trinity is just not one of those issues that really matters in the church.” He placed me in contact with another pastor on staff who expressed the same sentiments. I explained to them that it was my understanding that when other leaders such as John MacArthur had confronted this pastor about his heretical beliefs, he continued to obstinately hold to his false beliefs. I engaged in several email and phone conversations with these staff members, and essentially what it came down to was “Candace, what does the Trinity have to do with having church?” With that, I wrote a letter explaining to them why I could no longer be a member of the choir or the church for that matter, and I was literally mocked for my decision. The minister of music literally laughed at me and said I didn’t realize I was making a dumb decision. Some of my family members disagreed with my decision, and said I misunderstood doctrine and that I was making a huge mistake. But this situation solidified what I had always suspected: that theology in the Black church generally takes a back seat to sensationalism or emotionalism.

“T.D. Jakes can preach!” was the retort with which I was met when I expressed my reasons for leaving his church. Never mind that he believes that the Father, Holy Spirit, and Son are one Person, or that one must be baptized to receive salvation. Anyone who had taken a quick survey of historical theology would have quickly noticed the heresy here of Sabellianism or modalism (the teaching that the only person of God is Jesus Christ and essentially when the three persons of the Trinity are working throughout time and Scripture it’s just Jesus basically wearing three different hats). Oneness Pentecostalism also teaches that one must be baptized in order to be saved in addition to confessing Christ as Savior. There’s nothing new under the sun. It’s an old heresy that is unfortunately still being propagated today; only most in the Black church are unaware or just simply don’t consider orthodoxy a priority.

How can this happen in the Black church? I realize this occurrence is not exclusive to the Black church alone, but I’d like to explore why it’s such a big problem for the Black church in particular. Why is it that we look at church as a place to “get happy” or merely focus on our emotions, rather than to delve into God’s word as we assemble with other saints? Should we be content with an institution that produces young people who shout and speak in tongues, but are awkward and at a loss for words when it comes to speaking the gospel message in a coherent manner that is consistent with Scripture?

Word of Faith and the Prosperity Gospel

I had an interesting conversation with a pastor at my mom's church several years ago. His thoughts were that our faith has the ability to "control" God's actions, and that we can "command" God to give us what we want regardless of what He desires for us. Obviously, I firmly believe that Scripture teaches that our faith is effective and is the catalyst for miracles, but I had a serious problem with this pastor's language of "command," "control," and "ordering God to act according to our wishes" for the purpose of acquiring material wealth or any desires, for that matter.

I object to the Word of Faith movement and the prosperity gospel on the following bases:

1. It's unbiblical; we're told throughout Scripture that God is sovereign--He is the one who moves men's hearts to follow His will (not the other way around).
2. No matter how much faith we have, the truth is that God has the final say in the end. For example, Paul prayed fervently that God would remove the thorn from his flesh three times with all the faith he had. But in the end God said "No…My grace is sufficient for you; for My power is made perfect in your weakness--II Corinthians 12:7-10." (This doesn't, however mean that God is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses--Hebrews 4:14-15).
3. This teaching can lead to disillusionment with God altogether. As Christians, we know that God knows what's best for us even when it seems as though things aren't going according to our immediate desires. God alone (as our Father) reserves the right to say "no" to us if he thinks that giving us what we want is not in our best interest. After all, what kind of a father indiscriminately allows his children to have whatever they want? This is true even in cases in which it seems that evil prevails; Although it's not God's ultimate desire that we suffer for suffering’s sake, He permits what He forbids in order that His ultimate will be worked out ("what the devil means for evil, God intends for good--Gen. 45).
4. It sets up a false expectation that's based on a distortion of God's character, for the unbeliever. If a Christian tells a non-Christian, "Come to Christ and He'll make life easy for you and bless you with whatever you want!" then imagine the shock the non-Christian will experience when he comes to find out that life actually becomes harder after you make a definitive commitment to Christ. Jesus Himself said "In this world you WILL have trouble" but thankfully he didn't stop there--"Take heart, for I have overcome the world" (John 16:33). Our hope shouldn't be based on God taking our troubles away, it should be based on a God who came and experienced ultimate suffering so that we could have the peace of coming to a God who's not removed from pain when we go through it.

The Religion of the Slaves

I will submit to you that the African-American church, having been born out of our slavery days began as a means of survival, and we, theologically speaking, simply haven’t progressed much beyond that. Slaves were not afforded the luxury of reading the works of Jonathon Edwards or discussing the intricacies of the doctrine of the Trinity. Slaves were primarily concerned about benefiting from a relationship with a Savior who could relate to being oppressed and held the power to offer them freedom. Dr. Anyabwile talks about African-American theology having been developed in the crucible of the slave experience. I’m certain there weren’t slaves who were escaping on the Underground Railroad whispering, “Do you lean more towards consubstantiation or transubstantiation?” Rather, they sang, “Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen, nobody knows but Jesus.” Even now when we’re facing a difficult situation, we cry out to God. Black people were looking to a more immediate freedom from their physical chains; this helps us understand the impetus of their religion.

I believe this is the appeal of the Black liberation theology movement. James Cone, one of the progenitors of the movement, made the following statement: ‘I respect what happened at Nicaea and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) and the theological input of the church fathers on Christology; but that source alone is inadequate for finding out the meaning of Black folks’ Jesus.’ Regarding Athanasius’s discussion of the Son’s homoousia, or one substance with the Father, Cone replied, ‘the homoousia question is not a Black question. Blacks do not ask whether Jesus is one with the Father or divine or human, though the orthodox formulations are implied in their language. They want to know whether Jesus is walking with them, whether they can call Him on ‘the telephone of prayer’ and tell him about their troubles.[1]” This may sound appealing, but if you listen closely the problems with Cone’s philosophy of theology are glaring! Black liberation theology disregards the authority of the Bible, history of the church, and reinterprets Christian doctrines as a whole to fit its larger socio-political agenda. I believe it is this mindset that is responsible for the decline of theology in the Black church.

Yes, it is true that during slavery we needed to commune with a God who was on the mainline, so we could “call Him up and tell Him what we want[ed],” but we are indeed in a sad state if we are in the same place today. We have had a difficult journey moving beyond ourselves to a more theo-centric perspective, and I believe we are suffering because of it. I cite my former example of Oneness Pentecostalism as proof of this.

Speaking of which, some may be aware that the Church of God in Christ convocation is taking place right now, and T.D. Jakes was one of the speakers. I grew up as 4^th generation member of the Church of God in Christ (though I have not been a member for 10 years now), so I have a special interest in this. On her facebook page, my sister mentioned her disapproval of the COGIC leaders’ move to allow him to speak at this historic convocation, and some of the reactions she encountered were essentially “Chill out, and if you really think Jakes is that bad just pray for him,” and “I don’t see what the big deal is; I really enjoy his preaching.” She was accused of being judgmental, was told that she was being unloving, and was told to take the plank out of her own eye. I pointed out to her accusers that there is a marked difference between being judgmental and holding someone accountable for their doctrine. James 3:1 says that teachers are held to a higher standard. We are commanded to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3). We are exhorted to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought (or idea) to make it obedient to Christ” in II Corinthians 10:5. The people who were speaking against my sister were apparently unfamiliar with the Christian’s duty to combat false doctrine with sound doctrine. One person acquiesced once I made him aware of Jakes’ false beliefs, but others unrelentingly defended Jakes simply because he’s a dynamic preacher who undoubtedly speaks to them in their immediate situation. Never mind his blatant disregard for historic Christian orthodoxy or his stubborn attitude in holding onto his false beliefs.

Unlike our ancestors, we have the freedom to study orthodoxy in its entirety. We now have an obligation not to merely pick and choose the parts of Christianity that speak to our immediate situation or make us happy enough to shout or “have church.” Even among the first Black theologians that emerged during slavery there was still a high regard for the word of God. We don’t have access to a complete body of work by these men, but we do know they existed and we have excerpts of some of their writings. Jupiter Hammon, a slave and the first African-American to publish a work of literature, in 1760, was converted during the revivals of the Great Awakening. He wrote to his fellow slaves, “The Bible is the word of God and tells you what you must do to please God…The Bible is the mind and will of God to men.[2]” This man, though a slave, still held Scripture in the highest regard and encouraged his peers to heed his words as he heeded Scripture.

Daniel Payne, also born a slave, in 1811, taught himself to read and write in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. He also encouraged slaves to hold the Scriptures in high esteem. He exhorted his readers to “Rest not until you have learned to read the Bible.[3]” He wrote, “If a conviction infringes upon the written word of God, or in any manner conflicts with that word, the conviction is not to be followed. It is our duty to abandon it. Moreover, I will add that light on a doubtful conviction is not to be sought for in the conscience, but in the Bible. The conscience, like the conviction, may be blind, erroneous, misled, or perverted; therefore, it is not always a safe guide. The only safe guide for a man or a woman, young or old, rich or poor, learned or unlearned, priest or people is the Bible, the whole Bible, nothing but the Bible.[4]” What has happened to our zeal since then? These men would be so disappointed to learn that men who disregard orthodoxy are able to pastor large churches and are given free reign to speak at national church conventions regardless of their false doctrinal beliefs. Dr. Anyabwile states, “Where the early church members searched the Scriptures to test the veracity of the apostles’ teachings (Acts 17:10-11), the present-day church offers only passive inspection, often accepting a church leader’s opinion as a satisfactory basis for defining core belief and conduct.[5]” This is indeed the state of most of the Black church.

The Black Liberation Theology Movement

The Black church has also been affected more recently (since the 1960s and 70s) by the Black Power movement of the Civil Rights Era. Few realize how much Black liberation theology has influenced the way we “do” church. James Cone differed from his predecessors in that he did not have a high view of special revelation. Cone aligned himself with the neo-orthodox views of special revelation, rejecting any claims of Scripture’s infallibility and inspiration, reducing Scripture to a “guide for checking the contemporary interpretation of God’s revelation, making certain that our interpretation is consistent with the biblical witness.[6]” Black liberation theologians are concerned with “only the tradition of Christianity that is usable in the Black liberation struggle.[7]” This employs a destructive hermeneutic. Black liberation theology reduces Christology (the person and work of Christ) to who Christ is to Black persons in their social situation, and “who He will be in the consummation of liberation hopes.” My personal qualm with it is that it disregards the rich cultural beauty of the African and Black traditions, and reduces us to mere victims of social oppression, thereby denying our ability to empower ourselves apart from our past.

Dr. Anyabwile states, “Cone’s understanding of what black history, experience, and culture entailed was an extremely narrow conception. He viewed Black experience in singular terms—“ a life of humiliation and suffering” and an existence “where babies are tortured, women are raped, and men are shot” in a system of white racism. Cone seemed unable to imagine a view of blackness not bound by extreme suffering. This framework effectively limited Scripture and tradition—two of the three sources of historical orthodox theology—to instrumental roles in service to political interests of the community. And, by demanding that the norms for theological inquiry must be based in group interests and group questions, Cone’s doctrine of revelation consigned the more individualistic questions of salvation and personal communion with God to nonexistence.[8]” One’s relationship with God could not be viewed apart from their racial experience. Now, is there a place for understanding Christ as a liberator of His people? Absolutely! But we would fall short to limit His work of liberation to merely our social situation or our own race. We must, rather be prepared to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, and the Christ of God's true Word who came in the flesh, suffered, and died to set the captives free; this Christ alone possesses the ability to give all men freedom when they call upon His name even when others try to deny them the freedom thereof. “If the Son sets you free you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).

A Challenge Issued to Black Apologists

A member of the Nation of Islam once wrote to me asking how Christianity was capable of “healing” our race of the rampant racism we have suffered throughout the centuries (he was presuming that the Nation had the answer). In short I responded that the God of the Bible offers the peace of mind that we have from knowing that in Christ all peoples are ontologically equal. For centuries we as a people have been oppressed and told that we are "less than" and that we don't measure up to White people. But imagine widening your perspective to a worldview in which the progenitor (Christ) and His followers proclaim that in Him "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). I wrote to this man and told him we cannot heal ourselves; Jesus offers healing for you and for me from what we've suffered as a people from the injustices, prejudices, and bigotry of this country in the past and even till this day, but we must embrace Him for how He reveals Himself to us, not how we would like to interpret Him based upon our own presuppositions. The fact is we are not the only people group that has suffered throughout the beginning of humanity; we as a human race have all suffered at the hands of other corrupt people who live in perpetual ignorance, hatred, and resentment. Following Christ empowers us to individually and corporately put an end to this cycle of hate, and release ourselves from the captivity of the past and present. But how can we expect to gain the freedom that only Christ can give if we are not willing to embrace who Christ really is in His entirety, apart from merely our social agenda? We must resist the temptation to conform Christ to our image of One who speaks to us merely in our social situation, rather than conforming ourselves to His image and mission in light of how He has revealed Himself to us through special revelation. Conformance to Christ is the only means of cultivating unity throughout His body and becoming free from our cultural captivity. Only when we begin to walk in the freedom that Christ offers through His gospel will we truly be emancipated from the slavery of sin.

[1] Thabiti Anyabwile, “The Decline of African-American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity” (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007), p. 160.

[2] Ibid. p. 28.

[3] Ibid. p. 29.

[4] Ibid. p. 30.

[5] Ibid. p. 61.

[6] Ibid. p. 52.

[7] Ibid. p. 52.

[8] Ibid. p. 51.

In honor of the current convocation of the Church of God in Christ that is taking place in St. Louis, Missouri right now (marking the 113^th anniversary of the denomination), I’ve decided to devote some research to the denomination from a personal and theological standpoint. I grew up as a 4^th generation member of the Church of God in Christ, so I had a personal interest in researching it. I’ll begin with an historical outline of the founder’s experiences that led him to establish this prominent denomination that is now recognized as the largest Black Pentecostal denomination in America.

Bishop Charles Harrison Mason was the founder of what is currently the fifth-largest and fastest growing denomination in this nation, the Church of God in Christ.[1] The Church of God in Christ (also known as COGIC) was founded in 1897, although it did not receive its official title until 1907. This denomination is Pentecostal or what is also commonly referred to as ‘Holiness’ in its doctrines and practices, and has historically been classified as the largest Pentecostal and African-American denomination in the nation, with over 7 million members. The Church of God in Christ was founded on a strong emphasis on the inspiration, infallibility, and final authority of Scripture, along with a firm stance on each of the essential Christian doctrines. But the doctrine it is perhaps most known for is the teaching that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a phenomenon that takes place subsequent to one’s salvation, and is manifested specifically through speaking in tongues. This teaching, which the church derives on the basis of its interpretation of Acts 2:4, and its teaching concerning an elevated view of holiness and sanctification played a very significant role in the enlightenment of C.H. Mason in 1897, and his eventual emergence as the founder of what would become the largest Pentecostal denomination in America.

Charles Harrison Mason was born in 1866 to parents who were formerly slaves in Memphis, Tennessee. When Mason was only 12 years old (some reports claim he was 14 years of age), he was stricken with Tuberculosis, as the epidemic swept through his hometown. His family eventually left for Plumersville, Arkansas to avoid further illness. The outbreak claimed his father’s life, but fortunately C.H. Mason suddenly recovered from his illness. His wife, Elsie Mason, states in her book “The Man: Charles Harrison Mason (1866-1961),” that he “got out of bed and walked outside all by himself…There, under the morning skies, he prayed and praised God for his healing. During these moments [Charles] renewed his commitment to God.”[2]

Although Mason was raised by devout Christian parents who belonged to the Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee, some reports claim he initially resisted involvement in Christian ministry as a child and did not encounter Christ personally until he had this experience of having been healed from Tuberculosis. His ‘healing experience’ thereby led to him recommitting his life to Christ and proclaiming to his friends what God had done for him. Once he was converted, he believed God had healed him for the express purpose of alerting him to his spiritual duty. He acknowledged God called him into full-time ministry, although he was still hesitant when it came to fully accepting and embracing his calling. In 1893, at the age of 27, he received his “preaching” license and was ordained by Mount Gale Missionary Baptist Church in Preston, Arkansas, but did not desire to enter full-time ministry, so that he could marry his wife, Alice Saxton, the daughter of his mother’s closest friend. However, Mason shortly thereafter became distressed when his new wife vehemently opposed his attempts to pursue ministry. They separated, and subsequently divorced after two years of marriage, and Mason vowed to not marry again while his former wife still lived. He would later remarry, to Elsie Mason, the wife to whom he remained married for the remainder of his life.

During the time that followed his divorce from Saxton, Mason’s determination to pursue higher learning was renewed, and he enrolled at Arkansas Baptist College shortly thereafter in November of 1893. However, Mason attended the school for only a short time before deciding to drop out. Although many members of COGIC since then (and even now) mistakenly claim he left Bible college because he was against the idea of religious intellectual pursuit, more careful research indicates Mason’s true reason for leaving was he believed the teachings being promulgated at this particular Bible college were liberal and did not have a strong enough emphasis on the Word of God; he was deeply disturbed by the particular hermeneutical and philosophical presuppositions that were underlying the curriculum set forth by certain faculty members. Therefore, he strongly disagreed with their approach, and decided to leave in January of 1894. He continued to faithfully preach in any available pulpit to which he received an invitation.

Mason’s major turning point came in later in 1894 when he experienced, what his wife, Elsie Mason, referred to as his “sanctification.” She explains, “In the year 1894, Charles Mason was sanctified through the Word. He preached his first sermon on holiness using the text of II Timothy 3:12, ‘Thou therefore endure hardness as a good soldier…’After his very first sermon on sanctification, Mason was away for two weeks. He returned to discover that a revival had broken out due to that first holiness sermon.”[3] Upon a pastor’s request that Mason assume the position of Evangelist for the revival, Mason went into the woods, seeking solitude. He later recounts, “I felt it was my first duty to consult the Lord. I went into the woods, fell to my knees, and asked the Lord to give evidence of my call to the ministry by giving success and converting leading sinners of that community in the revival.”[4] Just then, it appeared God had indeed confirmed his calling when people approached him, eagerly crying out for salvation that very moment. Once the revival ended, Mason began to proclaim his dogmatic teachings against sin and the need for “sanctification and holiness” in the life of the believer. His popularity with the “grass roots” population continued to increase, as he continued to pastor at the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama. He recalls, “My ministry with that church and with the Alabama Baptist Ministry at large seemed to be accepted and much beloved. But as I read my Bible and observed conditions, I felt that we were not, as a brother once said to me, ‘toting fair with Jesus.’ I began then to seek Him with all my heart for the power that would make my life wholly His…I was not satisfied with a faith that brought no fruit, or else fruit of so poor a quality, spiritually…I wanted to be like Abraham, a friend of God.”[5]

Shortly after he began teachings that emphasized holiness and sanctification, he encountered opposition from critics who were uncomfortable with his strong stances on these subjects. In 1897, the Mississippi Baptists ordered to vacate his pulpit for his unwavering preaching of Holiness doctrines. Later, in the early 1900s Mason had an epic encounter at the Azusa Street Revival, and there received what he claimed was the “Baptism of the Holy Ghost,” and subsequently spoke in tongues. Once he returned and shared with his colleagues his experience, they opposed him. Legal battles ensued, and Mason eventually lost in a case that went to the Supreme Court, thereby severing his ties with his former co-laborers for good. He then formed his own denomination, which he termed the “Church of God in Christ” officially in 1907. The first meeting place for COGIC was a gin house, but Mason, having lived to the age of 95, had the privilege of seeing his denomination become one of the largest of his time.

Having grown up a member of the Church of God in Christ, and daughter, granddaughter, and great granddaughter of members of the same denomination, I experience a certain level of admiration for the founder of this particular denomination. Although I have not claimed membership with COGIC for almost 10 years and am not in agreement with all of its doctrines (namely, its interpretation of the meaning of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and the implications thereof, its teaching of the possibility of loss of salvation, and tendency towards legalism), I can still both appreciate and learn from a life well lived by its founder, Bishop Charles Harrison Mason. I find great value in the humility and brokenness of Mason. His honesty with God regarding each stage of his ministry provides realistic insight into the true heart of one who has been called, and rightfully humbled by said calling. A review of his life makes his struggles with God very apparent and humanizes his journey with God, in that he recognized his frailty, and relied upon the express statement from God that His calling was sure and that God would be the One to see to it that he would succeed in his ministry. His life serves as an example that God equips those whom He calls and calls those whom He has equipped. I have great appreciation for the sincerity with which Bishop Mason sought God, especially when he writes that he has an unquenchable, earnest thirst to know God deeply and intimately in such a way that it transforms every aspect of his life. I can relate to his eager expression that he has no desire for a faith that bears no fruit and bears no testimony, but that it is his earnest will that the evidence of his regeneration be shown in his life to the same magnitude to which it was shown in Abraham’s life, as a friend of God.

Undoubtedly as his popularity and fame grew, Mason was tempted to seek the approval and praise of people, yet he unwaveringly retained a firm grip on the anchor for his soul, his intimacy with the Lord Jesus Christ. Reports of his life serve as evidence of a steadiness in his direction toward living out a sanctified life in his newfound life in Christ. In this respect, it was difficult for Bishop Mason to lose focus and suffer loss of perspective, since he was constantly recalibrating his actual life with the original calling God had placed on his life, as evidenced from his intense journaling of personal matters of the heart. Later in his life, reports reveal that whenever he thought he might have heard God saying something he was eager to listen and ready to respond, according to whatever God would reveal to him. Bishop Charles Harrison Mason indeed lived up to the reputation promulgated by the members of the Church of God in Christ even today. However, I believe that because his struggles and ‘human’ traits are so deemphasized in COGIC circles, many people are kept from benefiting from the bigger, more realistic picture of who he truly was as a man who acknowledged his frailty and utter dependence upon the living God to sustain him as he sought to carry out the will of the One who called him. His was a life well lived to the glory of God in Christ, as evidenced by a legacy of a denomination that though imperfect in some ways, continues to thrive in the light of truth in a culture marked by darkness.

[1] Joe Maxwell, Building the Church (of God in Christ), Christianity Today, 8 April 1996; 23.

[2] Elsie Mason, The Man: Charles Harrison Mason (1866-1961) (Memphis: Church of God in Christ, 1979), p. 10.

[3] Elsie Mason, The Man: Charles Harrison Mason (1866-1961) (Memphis: Church of God in Christ, 1979), p. 17.

[4] Ibid., p. 18.

[5] Elsie Mason, The Man: Charles Harrison Mason (1866-1961) (Memphis: Church of God in Christ, 1979), p. 18.

"Faith is confidence grounded in reality, not a wild, desperate "leap." ~ Dallas Willard

I once attended a lecture in which Christian philosopher John Mark Reynolds relayed a story about a woman in his parents’ church who in an attempt to demonstrate the extent of her faith proclaimed, “Even if you were to roll out on a cart the bones of Jesus I would still believe the resurrection to be true.” The purpose of his anecdote was to make us aware of an issue within the church that is manifested as a gross misunderstanding of the definition of faith in relation to reason. The woman’s proclamation was disturbing for several reasons. But my gut reaction to this story was to become defensive. I thought to myself, “I pray to God that non-Christians don’t ever think they need to disregard the use of critical thinking, ignore their doubts, and hang up their minds on the shelf in order to become a disciple of Christ.” But sadly, many people do view faith in direct opposition to reason, thereby determining that the Christian faith has no place for rationality. This is highly unfortunate, especially because the Christian faith places reason in such high regard. When speaking about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul states, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (I Corinthians 15: 14-17). Paul’s point is that it would be nonsensical to believe in something that does not at its core correspond to reality.

Although there are pockets of Christians who have a misunderstanding of the definition and role of faith, it is important for us all to acknowledge the rich intellectual history of the Christian church. During the age of Enlightenment, John Locke helped lay an epistemological foundation for shaping religious thought. “He maintained that religious belief must have a rational foundation and that where such a foundation is absent, religious belief is unwarranted.”[1] This is not to say that there is no room for legitimate religious experience in bringing someone to faith in Christ. It is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit to convict us and challenge us to a life of faith in Christ. Because of this, we should not disregard the earnest faith of someone who may not be able to sufficiently articulate the reasons they believe, at an early point in their faith journey. It is true that many people begin their walks with Christ without being able to offer more rationale than “You ask me how I know He lives…He lives within my heart.” But still, at some point in each believer’s faith journey he or she must be able to fully understand his or her need for a Savior, and the divine Son’s death and resurrection that make salvation possible, and be able to articulate these truths to some degree. Everyone need not be acquainted with N.T. Wright’s or William Lane Craig’s extensive work on the historicity of the resurrection; however, each believer should be able to state legitimate reasons that correspond to reality, for the hope that lies within them (I Peter 3:15). In Faith and Reason, Ronald Nash states, “While Christian believers should beware of those who exalt their private religious experiences above the normative Scriptures or who get carried away by excessive emotionalism, Christians have to acknowledge the importance of religious experience and be prepared to defend it.”[2] Therefore, every follower of Christ must be able to give a defense for the source of his or her faith.

Thomas Aquinas played a significant role in elevating the role of reason in the spiritual life of the believer. Rodney Stark comments, “[Summa Theologica] consists of logical ‘proofs’ of Christian doctrine and set the standard for all subsequent Christian theologians. Aquinas argued that because humans lack sufficient intellect to see directly into the essence of things, it is necessary for them to reason their way to knowledge, step by step. Thus although Aquinas regarded theology as the highest of the sciences, since it deals directly with divine revelations, he advocated the use of the tools of philosophy, especially the principles of logic, in seeking to construct theology.”[3] In some Christian circles, it is unacceptable to appeal to philosophy or reason in general to support the facts of the Christian faith. I believe this stems from a misunderstanding of the meaning of faith as well as an error in scriptural interpretation of Colossians 2:8, which states “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” The study of philosophy is highly valuable in the life of the believer who earnestly desires to love the Lord with his mind as well as his heart (Luke 10:27). It is true that any discipline can be misused for the purpose of taking away glory from God; in this case we use the discipline of philosophy in order to reverse this effect and “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (II Corinthians 10:5). Thus, philosophy can be employed to do away with the very ideas it is accused of perpetuating in some Christian circles.

Again, it is highly unfortunate that anti-intellectualism is on the rise in today’s church, to the detriment of our mission to reach out to the world with the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Like the woman Professor Reynolds mentioned in his lecture, many church-goers are content to leave their reasoning capability aside, terming it as secular or fleshly. But this is not how God has called us to think. Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland defines faith as “a power or skill to act in accordance with the nature of the kingdom of God, a trust in what we have reason to believe is true.”[4] Faith was never meant to be a blind intellectual leap into the irrational. Faith is “confidence grounded in reality, not a wild, desperate leap.”[5] It boggles my mind that I grew up in a church tradition that claimed if an idea or statement contradicted one’s little faith, then it was all the more reason to dismiss the idea as untrue! Rather than examining the scriptures to shed light on the issue, one would simply, blindly and boldly grasp onto their “faith,” which really wasn’t faith at all, but revealed itself to be a product of intellectual laziness. Christians have a rich cultural heritage in philosophy, science, and history, which is why it is a shame to observe the decline of the theological mind in the American church. On the other hand, though, I am encouraged by the growing numbers of people who are seeking training in the discipline of apologetics, and have a deep desire to employ both faith and reason in their daily Christian walk. May God bless His church with the intellectual commitment and spiritual fervor it once held in times past that we may be able to earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

[1] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 22.

[2] Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), p. 143.

[3] Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason (New York: Random House, 2005), p. 10.

[4] J.P. Moreland, Love your God with all your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), p.25.

[5] Dallas Willard Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002)